Use of novel methods to assess seasonal differences in the quality of boar semen stored up to 7 days at 17 °C

Open access


The objective of the present study was to determine the seasonal changes in boar semen quality by the assessment of sperm membrane integrity, analysis of chromatin structure, assessment of oxidative stress and of apoptotic changes in spermatozoa. Semen from 16 boars (172 ejaculates) was investigated. The males were aged between 7 months and 7 years. Semen was extended with BTS diluent and stored at +17 ºC. During seven days of storage, the semen was subjected to standard evaluation and novel methods for semen assessment. In the autumn - winter period, the semen had higher evaluations than in the spring - summer period; but only sperm membrane integrity examination showed significantly lower (p ≤ 0.01) percentage of moribund spermatozoa and the semen had a significantly (p ≤ 0.05) lower (by 0.5%) percentage of sperm with damaged chromatin. Examination performed after 7-day storage showed significantly (p ≤ 0.01) higher percentage of live spermatozoa and with high mitochondrial membrane potential for the autumn - winter period. The level of apoptotic cells was significantly (p ≤ 0.01) lower for the autumn - winter period. Examination of sperm membrane integrity after 7 days storage showed a lower (p ≤ 0.05) percentage of moribund spermatozoa for the autumn - winter period. In our opinion, novel methods for sperm assessment may be used to monitor new parameters of sperm function.

If the inline PDF is not rendering correctly, you can download the PDF file here.

  • Adamiak A. Kondracki S. Wysokińska A. (2010). Influence of season of the year on physical properties of ejaculates from Polish Large White and Polish Landrace boars (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk. Zoot. 37 (2): 159-167.

  • Banaszewska D. Kondracki S. Wysokińska A. (2007). The influence of the season on the sperm morphology young boars used for insemination (in Polish). Acta Sci. Pol. Zootechnica 6(2): 3-14.

  • Blom E. (1981). Morphological evaluation of bull spermatozoa. II. Proposition of a new classification of spermatozoa abnormalities (in Polish). Medycyna Wet. 37(4): 239-242.

  • Boe-Hansen G.B. Christensen P. Vibjerg D. Nielsen M.B.F. Hedeboe A.M. (2008). Sperm chromatin structure integrity in liquid stored boar semen and its relationships with field fertility. Theriogenology 69(6): 728-736.

  • Cerolini S. Maldjian A. Surai P. Noble R. (2000). Viability susceptibility to peroxidation and fatty acid composition of boar semen during liquid storage. Anim.Reprod.Sci. 58(1-2): 99-111.

  • De Ambrogi M. Ballester J. Saravia F. Caballero I. Johannisson A. Wallgren M. Andersson M. Rodrigues-Martinez H. (2006). Effect of storage in short--and long-term commercial semen extenders on the motility plasma membrane and chromatin integrity of boar spermatozoa. Int.J Androl. 29(5): 543-552.

  • Dubé C. Beaulieu M. Reyes-Moreno C. Guillemette C. Bailey J.L. (2004). Boar sperm storage capacity of BTS and Androhep Plus: viability motility capacitation and tyrosine phosphorylation. Theriogenology 62(5): 874-886.

  • Evenson D.P. Larson K.L. Jost L.K. (2002). Sperm chromatin structure assay: its clinical use for detecting sperm DNA fragmentation in male infertility and comparisons with other techniques. J. Androl. 23: 25-43.

  • Gillan L. Evans G. Maxwell W.M. (2005). Flow cytometric evaluation of sperm parameters in relation to fertility potential. Theriogenology 63(2): 445-457.

  • Gogol P. Szczęśniak-Fabiańczyk B. (2006). Effect of long-term storage on induced photon emission of boar spermatozoa. Czech J. Anim. Sci. 51: 61-65.

  • Gogol P. Wierzchoś-Hilczer A. Cegła M. (2007). Iron-induced luminescence as a method for assessing lipid peroxidation of frozen-thawed goat spermatozoa. Animal 1(6): 844-848.

  • Gogol P. Szczęśniak-Fabiańczyk B. Wierzchoś-Hilczer A. (2009). The photon emission ATP level and motility of boar spermatozoa during liquid storage. Reprod. Biol. 9(1): 39-49.

  • Górski K. Kondracki S. Wysokińska A. (2017). Effects of season on semen parameters and relationships between selected semen characteristics in Hypor boars. Turk. J. Vet. Anim. Sci. 41: 563-569. doi: 10.3906/vet-1701-42.

  • Kennedy B.W. Wilkins J.N. (1984). Boar breed and environmental factors influencing semen characteristics of boars used in artificial insemination. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 64: 833-843.

  • Knecht D. Środoń S. Duziński K. (2014). The influence of boar breed and season on semen parameters. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 44(1): 1-9.

  • Knox R.V. (2016). Artificial insemination in pigs today. Theriogenology 85: 83-93.

  • Kondracki S. Wysokińska A. Banaszewska D. Woźniak E. (2004). The effect of breed variability on boar’s semen characteristic (in Polish). Zesz. Nauk. AR Wrocław Zootechnika L 488: 179-185.

  • Kumaresan A. Kadirvel G. Bujarbaruah K.M. Bardoloi R.K. Anubrata Das Satish Kumar Naskar S. (2009). Preservation of boar semen at 18 °C induces lipid peroxidation and apoptosis like changes in spermatozoa. Anim Reprod Sci. 110(1-2): 162-171.

  • Peňa Jr. S.T. Stone F. Gummow B. Parker A.J. Paris D.B.B. (2018). Tropical summer induces DNA fragmentation in boar spermatozoa: implications for evaluating seasonal infertility. Reprod. Fertil. Dev. Nov. 12 doi: 10.1071/RD18159.

  • Pérez-Llano B. Enciso M. García-Casado P. Sala R. Gosálvez J. (2006). Sperm DNA fragmentation in boars is delayed or abolished by using sperm extenders. Theriogenology 66: 2137-2143.

  • Reed H.C.B. (1986). Influence of season on semen parameters and male fertility in the pig. In: Definition of the summer infertility problem in the pig Seren S.E. Mattioli M. (eds.) Bologna pp. 91-108.

  • Rodriguez A.L. Ann Van Soom A. Arsenakis I. Maes D. (2017). Boar management and semen handling factors affect the quality of boar extended semen. Porcine Health Management 3:15.

  • Smital J. De Sousa L.L. Mohsen A. (2004). Differences among breeds and manifestation of heterosis in AI boar sperm output. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 80: 121-130.

  • Smital J. (2009). Effects influencing boar semen. Anim. Reprod. Sci. 110: 335-346.

  • Smital J. (2010). Comparison of environmental variations in boar semen characteristics of six breeds and their crossbreds over an eight-year period. Research in Pig Breeding 4: 26-32.

  • Sonderman J.P. Luebbe J.J. (2008). Semen production and fertility issues related to differences in genetic lines of boars. Theriogenology 70: 1380-1383.

  • Szostak B. 2003. Influence of genotype age of boar and season on some semen characteristic (in Polish). Zesz. Nauk. Przegl. Hod. 68(2): 147-155.

  • Szczęśniak-Fabiańczyk B. Bochenek M. Smorąg Z. Ryszka F. (2003). Effect of antioxidants added to boar semen extender on the semen survival time and sperm chromatin structure. Reproductive Biology 3(1): 81-87.

  • Szczęśniak-Fabiańczyk B. Bochenek M. Smorąg Z. (2007). Survival time and chromatin damage of boar semen stored in different diluents. Arch.Tierz. Dummestorf 50 (Special Issue): 102-106.

  • Trzcińska M. Bryła M. Smorąg Z. (2008). Effect of liquid storage on membrane integrity and mitochondrial activity: a new diagnostic method of evaluating boar sperm quality. J. Anim. Feed Sci. 17(3): 372-380.

  • Trzcińska M. Bryła M. (2015). Apoptotic-like changes of boar spermatozoa in freezing media supplemented with different antioxidants. Polish Journal of Veterinary Sciences. 18(3): 473-480. DOI: 10.1515?pjvs-2015-0062.

  • Tsakmakidis I.A. Khalifa T.A.A. Boscos C.M. (2012). Age-related changes in quality and fertility of porcine semen. Biol. Res. 45: 381-386.

  • Waberski D. Schapmann E. Henning H. Riesenbeck A. Brandt H. (2011). Sperm chromatin structural integrity in normospermic boars is not related to semen storage and fertility after routine AI. Theriogenology 75(2): 337-345.

  • Wysokińska A. Kondracki S. Banaszewska D. Zajda J. (2008). Features of boar ejaculate insemination depending on the breed and season (in Polish). Rocz. Nauk. PTZ 4(3): 233-242.

Journal information
Impact Factor

IMPACT FACTOR 2018: 1.515
5-year IMPACT FACTOR: 1.246

CiteScore 2018: 1.4

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2018: 0.509
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2018: 0.869

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 40 40 6
PDF Downloads 36 36 5